Thursday, October 24, 2013

"What You Did To Me"

What You Did To Me 
by Peter Hyatt

Have you ever been "injured" by someone?

Was the injury physical, or psychological?

Or, perhaps, was it both?  The language that you use may give us insight into the type of "hurt" or "wounding" that took place, how long ago it happened, and if you are fully recovered, or the impact continues, like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, to this day.  Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD, can leave the victim with nightmares, hyper vigilance, and other difficult issues of which to deal with, and can sometimes be seen in the language.

We have previously learned that sexual abuse victims often speak of 'coverings' of sorts, like towels, or blankets.

For example,

"I got out of the shower, toweled off, got dressed and went to work."

It is not necessary for the subject to tell us that he dried himself off with a towel.  No one is likely to think he got out of the shower and ran around his backyard naked until he was dry.  Yet, for the subject, it was important enough to enter his language.

We find that coverings of sorts enter the language of sexual abuse victims, but we also find it enter the language of PTSD sufferers, such as those who were on heightened alert (elevated hormones) in combat.  They sometimes "need" to feel "covered."  Another example:

"So, I went to bed, pulled up the covers, and went to sleep."

As an interviewer, when I find 'coverings' enter the language, I am on alert for possible sexual abuse concerns, and/or PTSD.  It generally does not take much to get to the reason why a 'covering' entered the language.

With people who continue to suffer, like a PTSD victim, language can show the pain continuing.  Sometimes, in extreme cases, they can even slip into present tense verbs, but that will be for another article.

In anger, people will sometimes strike back at the one who "wounded" them with:

"What you did to me..." or  "You think I forgot what you did to me?"

This stands in contrast to:  

"What you have done to me..." or "You think I forgot what you have done to me?"

This is a case of "did" versus "have done" in the language of the subject.

The difference, though not always apparent to the casual listener, can be significant.

Everyone of us has been hurt, in some way or another, by another human being.  As a race of people, we desperately need the restraint of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" rehearsed in our hearing from an early age onward.

Has someone ever "hurt" you?

In entering into  my personal, subjective dictionary, I have a specific "hurt" in mind.  It is the psychological hurt, say of a betrayal.

Let's say that someone cut you with a knife, inadvertently.  The timing of the event may figure into the language:

"I was cut with a knife by accident."

"I have been cut with a knife by accident."

The second sentence may be more likely heard from someone who has not healed from the cut.

In psychological trauma or hurt, sometimes the subject never fully recovers (more on this later) from the wound and the language is similar to the knife cut that has yet to heal.

Exercise:

The next time you find yourself saying "have done" rather than "did", explore your own language and see if the event continues to impact you.

Perhaps it was an insult.  Great insults last a long time.  If you can recall an insult from long ago, perhaps it still has sting to it.

What words do you use to describe it?

Is it ongoing, or it is something you have moved past and does not 'excite' the brain's chemistry as it once did?

It is likely that you will find, in your own life, that your language will reveal the difference.


54 comments:

SKEoD said...

If you can recall an insult from long ago, perhaps it still has sting to it.
What words do you use to describe it?
------------

do you really want me to answer that?

GetThem said...

Because "did to me" could be a recent or past experience but stated that way it sounds at the tip of their subconscious. It bothers them and it may have happened a long time ago, but it haunts them enough to speak of it as something that could have occurred yesterday.

As opposed to "done to me" which sounds like it happened a long time ago and in the past.

I'm not good at explaining, but that makes sense in my head ha ha.

Anonymous said...

What about "She hurt me" vs "She has hurt me"? Is there an implication in the latter that she could again?

Buckley

JerseyJane said...

SKEoD,
Bahahahahahahaha!!!

WoW, I can imagine!

TrishapatK said...

It seems to me that saying " what you did to me" i implies that it is squarely in the past.

In contrast, the phrase "what you have done to me" has connotations of an ongoing thing that was done but continues to impact me very strongly, so strongly that the act itself is still fresh either because of the pain still experienced in the present. ( even if the act itself happened in the past.

Sus said...

I love this post. Yes, the past perfect tense denotes a continuation of what happened, even if only in thought or feeling.

It makes sense that those suffering from PTSD would speak as if the hurt is in the present or continues.

There are certain cases it is difficult for me to rise above past hurts and comment from the present.

Anonymous said...

Is this referring to a strictly one-on-one sort of scenario, specifically with anger or hurt involved? What if an insult greatly offended you, hurt you, but you don't feel changed as a person?
Alternately, what if something traumatic happened but did not have a person responsible, perhaps a car wreck?
What if it was something you were responsible for? Example: Earlier this year my hand slipped while cutting veggies and the knife gouged my stomach. But I didn't ever say, "I've been stabbed/cut/etc."
I ask because the way I'm understanding it is that to use the present-tense "I have" rather than "I was" obviously implies the situation still feels ongoing and present to the victim. But even years later, when say a flashback or something similar occurs, would the victim still refer to it in the resent tense, even though they know it to be in the past?

john said...

A very good article.

It does though,put a whole new slant on Past Vs Present tense language when doing analysis.I was aware of PTSD a little in S/A. What i will take away from this article is, not to look at Past Vs Present tense with tunnel vision and black and white, but to have more of a peripheral view of statements.

Again Great Article..

john said...

OT..

JonBenet Ramsey Update:

Judge releases 1999 indictments of John and Patsy Ramsey.

Snipped:

n or between Dec. 25 and Dec. 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colo., John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen.

And:

On or between Dec. 25 and Dec. 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colo., John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57609166-504083/jonbenet-ramsey-update-judge-releases-1999-indictments-of-john-and-patsy-ramsey/

C5H11ONO said...

I gather that when Boz Skaggs was moved to write his "Look What You've Done to Me" song lyrics, there was someone in his life that had made quite a lasting impression on him.

C5H11ONO said...

From CNN Article on Jon Benet:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/justice/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/#cnn-disqus-area

John Ramsey and his family have always said they are not guilty.

"There's a killer on the loose," Patsy Ramsey, said a few days after the body was found. "I don't know who it is. I don't know if it's a she or a he, but ... there's someone out there."


Yikes! Order is important. patsy claims that she doesn't know if it is a "she" (1st) or a "he" (2nd). Why would she list a female first? I find that interesting since most people believe it would be a man more than likely?

Sus said...

Re: Ramsey indictment
I hate to say it, but that's a watered down, "we don't know what happened, but something must have" indictment ...not for murder of JonBenet.

Are there transcripts anywhere out there of Patsy's testimony to the grand jury? Did she appear before the grand jury?

Sus said...

Thanks anyway. I looked it up and neither Ramsey appeared before the grand jury.

Jen said...

The reason it seems like a 'watered down' indictment is that Alex Hunter and the prosecutors office refused to allow the detectives who were on the case from the beginning, who believed Patsy/John were guilty (Steve Thomas, and can't remember the other guys names) were not allowed to testify.
The people who knew the most about the case were kept from testifying to the grand jury, and they STILL returned an indictment (which we all know was not signed by Hunter in his cowardly decline to press on with the charges).

Linda Arndt was eventually made 'lead detective' on the case. She had a peculiar relationship with Patsy Ramsey, (who sent Ardnt congratulatory flowers when she was promoted) and Ardnt believed she was innocent. (according to Thomas' book)

(I'll charge up my Ipad and post a few quotes from Thomas' book about the grand jury debacle, he said some interesting things about Hunter and the all out effort to protect the Ramsey's by their attorney's and the Pros)

john said...


Boulder Detective on the Ramsey Case says she knows who killed JonBenet Ramsey!

She was there when Jon Benet was found. You can feel her anger and pain..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Aly2fPK-XE

Anonymous said...

""did ... render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."

That makes me think they were covering for their son.

Buckley

Anonymous said...

Or covering for Patsy. The indictment only mentions John, unless I'm missing something.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:08,
I thought the same thing. But I think it was just the way the article was written. It said they both were indicted on the same charges but they only showed JR's charges and left it to the reader to insert PR's name.

"The documents released Friday show that the grand jury voted to charge both John and Patsy Ramsey with one count of Child Abuse Resulting in Death and one count of Accessory to a Crime. The grand jury issued two separate, but identical indictments for each parent. They state:"

Anonymous said...

another way to look at these scenarios: how will these principles apply when one is using similar verbiage but referring to someone hurting someone else besides you. for example this paragraph is snipped from a fb Ayla page:

Justin:

How can you hide while exposing everyone around you to personal, professional and emotional suffering-caused by YOU!?!? How can you let them languish in sorrow, misery and crisis for evermore for what YOU DID? Your own baby sister, Elisha? Your own big brother, Lance? Your mother, your aunts and your so-called friends- Derek, Hidey & Darrell Turdela's? The Roberts family? Courtney? Gessie? How can you sleep in that room "down there", knowing what YOU DID and continue to do to your friends and family? You must be a truly selfish coward!

http://justiceforayla.blogspot.com/2012/06/food-for-thought-karen-small-connection.html

Anonymous said...

Thanks Anon @ 7:42. So this wording does seem odd to me. I suppose the scenario is that one of the two, or both of them, participated in the death of Jon Benet.

Hobnob said...

off topic

The parents of baby Lisa Irwin have revealed their devastation that, Maria, the child found in a Greek Roma camp, is NOT their daughter - snatched from her bed two years ago.

Speaking to MailOnline, Deborah Bradely fought back tears as she told how she stumbled on the news online: I wasn't expecting it. I wasn't prepared. I hadn't checked my phone which had messages from people trying to get hold of me.

'I just saw that they had found Maria's parents and that she wasn't Lisa. It's hard to describe how that moment felt. We had really, really hoped that it was her this time.'

DNA tests today proved that Maria is the daughter of Bulgarian couple, Sashka and Atanas Ruseva. They claim they gave their child to the Roma family in whose care she was found.

For Deborah, 27, and her partner Jeremy Irwin, 31, it is a crushing blow. They have lived an agonizing cycle of loss and hope since the morning of October 4, 2011, when Lisa, then just 11 months old, was abducted from her Kansas City home while her mother slept.

The discovery of Maria - the bleak-faced little blonde who has been at the center of an international identity appeal until today - had brought a new peak of intensity. Because, for a while at least, they truly believed that Maria could be Lisa.
But with remarkable composure Deborah said: 'We are happy that this little girl has been found. That does bring me some joy and I'm still captivated by Maria's story and so glad that she will be in a safe place.

'She'll be in my prayers today just as she was yesterday.'

She added: 'It doesn't change our hopes. It doesn't change our plans to keep searching and to bring Lisa home. I'm glad some good has come out of this. It has raised awareness of Lisa again and that might generate new leads. We hope so.

'We hope that Maria's story is the catalyst that helps bring Lisa home.'

This is not the first time the couple have been lifted by a promising lead that offers up only heartache in the end. But it was by far 'the biggest' lead yet. And so it is by far the biggest let down they have suffered.

And somehow, regardless of the agonizing cycle of hope and disappointment through which they have lived so many times, they still dare to believe that their only daughter will one day be within touching distance.
Officials across the world had worked to find Maria's true identity since police found her last week. About 10 cases of missing children around the world were ‘ taken very seriously’ in connection with Maria’s case.

They included children from the United States, Canada, Poland and France.

In an emotional interview with MailOnline during the tense days when they waited for world Deborah and Jeremy told of what it was like living with such desperate hope.

‘No matter what, we’re always waiting for her,’ Deborah said.

Jeremy added, ‘It’s always 100 miles an hour and then zero miles an hour. I mean we’d like to get answers instantly but sadly they’ve got thousands of requests to go through so we have to be patient.’

‘It’s what it was like at the beginning,’ Deborah reflected.

News of Lisa’s abduction exploded into the small north Kansas neighborhood in the early hours of October 4 two years ago.

Officers hammered on neighbors’ doors, an Amber alert went out, posters were swiftly printed and a hotline set up. A handful of sightings went nowhere.

Hobnob said...

The couple became the subject of intense scrutiny. Deborah initially stated she had checked on baby Lisa around 10.40pm.

Later she wasn’t so certain that she had checked on the infant who was recovering from a cold and fever, after putting her down earlier than usual close to 6.30pm.

Electrician Jeremy was working a night shift. He came home around 4am to a house in some disarray, several lights were on, the front door was unlocked and with a cold sense of foreboding he checked on Lisa to discover she was gone.

In the weeks that followed young mother Deborah was forced to admit to having fallen asleep drunk.

Local news reported that the couple were not co-operating with law enforcement and had refused to be interviewed separately. Today Deborah and Jeremy are adamant that simply is not true.

Jeremy said: ‘I think we had only one interview together, the rest we did separately.
Deborah added: ‘I have spoken to law enforcement officials many times without an attorney present.

‘At the time of course it was heartbreaking to know that people thought we could harm our baby. But at the same time our focus has always been on Lisa and we know the truth.

‘We will keep on going until she comes home and in the grand scheme of things nothing else matters. The bigger picture is just bringing her home.’

Posters of Lisa are tacked to the front of the family’s clapboard home. Fading kidnap appeal posters are strapped to neighbors’ trees with yellow ribbon. A banner on the Irwin’s home reads: ‘This house needs Lisa to make it home again. Help bring Lisa home.’

A little pebble, bearing the word ‘Hope’ sits at the door.

Speaking softly, Jeremy said: 'Is it heartbreaking and depressing every single time you see it? Absolutely. But it’s not going anywhere soon until she comes home.'

As a couple, Deborah and Jeremy try to maintain as much stability as possible for sons, Blake, ten, and Michael, seven. Blake is Jeremy’s son from a previous relationship and Michael is Deborah’s from her first marriage. Lisa is their only child together, ‘the bond that ties us,’ as Deborah put it.
They named her after Deborah's mother who died when Deborah was just 15.

At weekends and on holidays Lisa’s older brothers help hand out fliers and buttons and bracelets. Sometimes, Deborah admitted, it is their strength that gives her the will to carry on.

She clutches Lisa’s favorite Barney toy in bed each night.

She said:‘Sometimes even though it’s been two years since she was kidnapped, sometimes you wake up and it hits you all over again.

‘You have these moments when you just can’t believe that somebody stole your baby.’

Deborah’s one consolation is her belief that whoever took Lisa did not do so with the intention of harming her. ‘Nobody takes a baby to hurt them,’ she said.

Pictures of Lisa are everywhere in the house – on the walls and surfaces of each room. She is there as a newborn looked over lovingly by her brothers, there in Blake’s arms shortly before she was abducted. But where Blake and Michael’s pictures show the rapid changes of boyhood, Lisa is always a baby.

The only picture of her as she may be now is the National Center for Missing Children’s age progression artists’ impression.

Deborah has had it framed and put it on display along with the other family portraits.

Hobnob said...

She explained: ‘I like looking at it. When I first opened it up I had not a doubt that that’s my Lisa. I know it’s not a real photo, I wish it was. It was extremely overwhelming to look at it.

‘I didn’t want to stop touching it. It was like touching her. I look at it and I think that’s my daughter, that’s my Lisa.’

She is in a permanent state of desperate readiness for her daughter’s return.

Lisa’s small bedroom is cluttered with presents and cards and toys and clothes amassed in the time since she was last in it.

Everything is pink. Jeremy has made a dressing table with drawers for costumes she has never worn and jewelry she has never tangled or gazed on.

Deborah buys her the clothes that might fit her now. Baby clothes have been discarded, toddler garments set aside unworn. Now little dresses that might fit a girl of three hang on the side of the crib she will by now have outgrown.

The presents from her first and second birthday sit wrapped in Hello Kitty paper, untroubled by excited infant fingers.

'We want her to know, when she comes home, that we never once excluded her. We never forgot her,' Deborah explained.

Last year Deborah had a tattoo inked onto her forearm: a yellow ribbon with the date of Lisa’s abduction on one end and a blank space for the date of her homecoming on the other.

When she comes home Deborah will have it filled in pink – yellow is for those who are missing.

‘If Lisa likes it,’ she added. ‘If she doesn’t like it I’ll have it removed.’

It troubles Deborah that she does not know what her daughter likes. She doesn’t know what she is being fed. She doesn’t know if she still loves bananas and macaroni cheese and spaghetti.

She doesn’t know if, like Maria, she speaks no English.

She admitted: ‘That really worried me at first. I thought when my daughter comes home I won’t be able to tell her how much we’ve missed her, how much we love her, how much we have looked for her.

‘But then I thought I will have her in my arms and everything else we’ll work out.’

Tears are never far from Deborah’s eyes. They come unbidden and unexpectedly she admitted: 'You never know when a crying spell is going to break out. Sometimes it happens when I’m picking up the kids. Sometimes it happens when I go the grocery store. You never know.'

Because the absence always presses.

They nearly lost Lisa in the moment of her birth, at Center Point Hospital, Independence, Missouri, Deborah recalled. What began as a natural birth lurched to an emergency C-section as Lisa’s heartbeat suddenly dropped.

The umbilical cord was wrapped round her throat.

She said: ‘That was the scariest moment of my life. Until the day she was kidnapped -then I realized I’d never really been afraid in my life.’

Today both Deborah and Jeremy find strength in their faith. Each week friends and neighbors join them in their home to pray for Lisa and other missing children.

This cause, so bitingly personal, has become a broader one for them both. Since Lisa’s kidnapping they have become members of a club no-one would ever wish entrance to, as parents of missing children. It has opened their eyes to a world that they never knew existed.

Deborah said: ‘I will not have Lisa’s kidnap be in vain. Even after she is back our aim is to keep campaigning and raising awareness of human trafficking.

‘It’s something that I’ve noticed with Maria’s story that the subject is being talked about and it must be. This isn’t the movies - it’s happening. It happens to everyday average people like us.’

Casting an eye over her daughter’s bedroom, Deborah said: ‘Right now everything is overwhelming and we just have to be patient.'

Right now they must find their hope and cling to it once more.


For more information, please contact findlisairwin.com

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2477118/Missing-Lisa-Irwins-parents.html

Randie said...

OT:

Prince Charles' staff denies he said: "being King would be prison"

Clarence House said: "THIS is not the Prince of Wales's view and should not be attributed to him as he did not say THESE words. The prince has dutifully supported the Queen all his life and his official duties and charitable work have always run in parallel."

Hmmmm..... The words used are "close" this and these! The words should have been: THAT and THHOSE!

Anonymous said...

Randie,

Would House have used "this" and "that" if he was currently looking at a written copy of the alleged quote?

I don't know how that works.


Yukari said...

Uh-oh. The umbilical cord wrapped around Lisa´s neck during birth?
If that caused even a brief lack of oxygen supply to the brain, she might have been permanently affected. And IF any consequences only revealed themselves gradually as Lisa was progressing during her first year of life, her parents might have grown to consider her a problem the more it became obvious. If something like that happened (and I hope for Lisa´s sake it didn´t!), and the parents did not feel up to/couldn´t be bothered by caring for a (possible) special needs child - that could be a motive to get rid of her. :-(
Especially when you have examples like the McCanns who make a lot of money "searching" for their missing child. Deborah´s statements sound as if she is taking a leaf out of their book.

Anonymous said...

Peter in the pumpkin patch.

Peter, you just love taking photos of yourself don't you?

ME said...

It's HIS blog.you "just love"posting nastiness while hiding in"anonymous"mode.

Buckley said...

It's a good picture. He's way over there- how could he have taken it himself?

Buckley said...

My theory is that Deborah rolled over onto and suffocated Lisa. Then panicked, got her brother- is that right- who was the guy in the wine purchase video- anyway, got him to help her get rid of the body. I came to this conclusion when there was a cadaver hit on her bed and she explained it away by saying a stray cat had been there and that's what the dogs were smelling.

Buckley said...

^^^ plus, Lisa was wearing kitten pajamas

Jen said...

Hi Buckley-

I have always thought the same thing...that DB either smothered Baby Lisa accidentally, or that she dropped or otherwise injured her while intoxicated.

DB uses distancing language throughout her interview. It's always, "YOU don't think", or "YOU never know when YOUR going to break down", etc.

I can't believe she framed the age progression (like it was a real pic of Lisa) and added it amongst the other pics of her kids, or that she shared that she did in an interview! She is trying SO hard to convince us she thinks Lisa is alive. Nutjob!

Buckley said...

I'm curious what posters' theories are about the following, especially the ones where no body has been found.

The choices are:

What happened to each if the following?

Abduction
Accidental death and cover up
Second degree murder
First degree (premeditated) murder

The children are:
Baby Lisa-
Madeleine McCann-
Isabel Celis-
Kyron Hormon-
Ayla Reynolds-
Hailey Dunn-
JonBenet Ramsey-

Buckley said...

Here are mine, unsure on 2:


Baby Lisa- accidental death and cover up
Madeleine McCann- ??? Unsure
Isabel Celis- abduction
Kyron Hormon- premeditated murder
Ayla Reynolds- ??? Murder but unsure if premeditated
JonBenet Ramsey- accidental death and cover up
Hailey Dunn- second degree murder

Jen said...

Hi Buckley-

Mine are:

Baby Lisa-accidental death & cover up

Maddie McCann- accidental death by sedation, then covr up

Kyron Horman- premediataed murder by Terri Horman

Ayla Reynolds- murder by abuse with underlying finacial motive

JonBenet- accidental death and cover-up

Hailey Dunn- homicide, sexual motive with possible drugging to make her compliant

Jen said...

Forgot one:

Isabel- I think most likely sexual abuse leading to death and cover-up. Sergio/Becky's words and actions are full of red flags, which leads me to believe they know she is dead

Buckley said...

I agree his 911 call is odd. I disagree we can assume he know she is dead.

"AC: ...What do you remember about the last time you saw her, Sergio ?
SC: Just that sweet little face. Just that sweet little face. She was–she had just gotten her hair done. It was just before she went to bed. She had a baseball game early in the next morning. And Becky braided her hair up. So she was going to be ready for her early morning . And I was asking her if she was hungry and she just had that little sleepy look as she was walking by. And she just said, "no, daddy. I'm tired." And she was just walking by. She is–she wa–she is so full of life, and she is just so wonderful. And we do miss her so much. And her brothers miss her so much. [Julie] even said he’ll love her so much. We just need everyone out there, everyone, just to keep praying for her. Keep your eyes out."

He is asked a question about a past event. We would expect a past tense response. In fact, there are 13 past tense verbs before he self corrects to say she wa- is so full of life. Seven times he had already said "was." Even if he had said "was" without the self correction, he was asked a question about the events the last time he saw her. When I last saw her she is so full of life? Really, we'd expect that? So from that exchange we are to conclude he knows she's dead? That is not enough for me to draw anywhere near a definitive conclusion. Are there other places he refers to her in the past tense? In a dialogue we'd expect present tense? If so, maybe I'd change my mind.

Anonymous said...

Peter Hyatt:

"The language that you use may give us"

^^ pronoun usage (over usage)

'you'
'us'

Assumptions.

Add permission by usage of the word
'may'

Instead of 'can'

'Does/is' Peter ask/ing permission to question?

One or the other?

Since the author did not state/ment the obvious, one may not and or cannot assume the intent of words spoken and or typed to a blog.

-DM

Anonymous said...


what if you calculate the ""What You Did To Me"" lesson, and how it effects what we say, the difference between a current memory or a past/gotten over memory. the memory of when he last saw her would still be in effect, past or present tense.
so does that make any difference on how you would analyze the last half of his statement, which to start with, is an answer to a question that wasn't asked.
"And we do miss her so much. And her brothers miss her so much. [Julie] even said he’ll love her so much. We just need everyone out there, everyone, just to keep praying for her. Keep your eyes out."
1 and (add on)
2 we (shared)
3 do (present tense)
4 her (distancing)
5 brothers (bringing in back up)
6 even said (bringing in more back up)
7 we (again sharing)
8 just, twice (i know that's bad but dont remember why)
9 everyone (repeated)
10 Keep your eyes out(the rest of sentence is missing)

Jen said...

I agree he was asked a past tense question, but saying someone WAS so full of life is something only said when they are no longer full if life. He self corrects, but slipping into past tense reference is what we look for as a red flag. This statement is not the only time he refered to her in past tense (when he finally spoke a week into her 'disappearance').

His 911 is off the charts bizarre. He asserts that she is kidnapped, and the window open, etc..but he is not hysterical, not even excited. He is reporting his daughter 'kidnapped', but he is giggling and sounds like he is ordering a pizza, or something. He also made comments about how "we will never stop looking for you", which may show that he knows she will not be found (otherwise he would say, "we will never stop looking until we find you".

If there was only one questionable statement or strange behavior, then I would probably be on the fence about the strange cousin possibly being involved..but Sergio has managed to convince me otherwise every time he has opened his mouth, lol

Anonymous said...

everything you say MAY be used against you in a court of law.

everything you say CAN and WILL be used against you in a court of law.

use MAY when you are unsure whether it CAN/WILL, or when you are purposefully deceiving.
cops will use MAY if they think you might give up your right. but the truth is, it can and will be used against you.

Buckley said...

Alright, "never stop" is sensitive, I agree. The "full of life" is still not to me. He is referring to a past event; he should use past tense. Further, he did not introduce the phrase "full of life" Ann Curry of TODAY show did in the question she asked Celis, referring to a video of Isabel they had shown.

What about this from Kaaryn Gough's analysis of the same passage:

“It was just before she went to bed”—The question was about the last time the subject saw Isabel. This strongly suggests the subject did not see his daughter after she went to bed."

Hobnob said...

off topic

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1332689.ece

Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years


The new prime suspect was first singled out by detectives in 2008. Their findings were suppressed. Insight reports
The Sunday Times Insight team Published: 27 October 2013
Comment (0) Print


Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007 (Adrian Sheratt)


THE critical new evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard’s search for Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years after it was presented to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators.

The evidence was in fact taken from an intelligence report produced for Gerry and Kate McCann by a firm of former spies in 2008.

It contained crucial E-Fits of a man seen carrying a child on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, which have only this month become public after he was identified as the prime suspect by Scotland Yard.

A team of hand-picked former MI5 agents had been hired by the McCanns to chase a much-needed breakthrough in the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.

10 months after the three-year-old had disappeared from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz, and the McCanns were beginning to despair over the handling of the local police investigation. They were relying on the new team to bring fresh hope.

But within months the relationship had soured. A report produced by the investigators was deemed “hypercritical” of the McCanns and their friends, and the authors were threatened with legal action if it was made public. Its contents remained secret until Scotland Yard detectives conducting a fresh review of the case contacted the authors and asked for a copy.

They found that it contained new evidence about a key suspect seen carrying a child away from the McCanns’ holiday apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared.

This sighting is now considered the main lead in the investigation and E-Fits of the suspect, taken from the report, were the centrepiece of a Crimewatch appeal that attracted more than 2,400 calls from the public this month.

One of the investigators whose work was sidelined said last week he was “utterly stunned” when he watched the programme and saw the evidence his team had passed to the McCanns five years ago presented as a breakthrough.

The team of investigators from the security firm Oakley International were hired by the McCanns’ Find Madeleine fund, which bankrolled private investigations into the girl’s disappearance. They were led by Henri Exton, MI5’s former undercover operations chief.

Their report, seen by The Sunday Times, focused on a sighting by an Irish family of a man carrying a child at about 10pm on May 3, 2007, when Madeleine went missing.

An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends.

Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund.

A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public.

Hobnob said...

Kate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authorities (Adrian Sheratt) Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence.

It was immediately clear that two sightings of vital importance had been reported to the police. Two men were seen carrying children near the apartments between 9pm, when Madeleine was last seen by Gerry, and 10pm, when Kate discovered her missing.

The first man was seen at 9.15pm by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns, who had been dining with them at the tapas bar in the resort. She saw a man carrying a girl just yards from the apartment as she went to check on her children.

The second sighting was by Martin Smith and his family from Ireland, who saw a man carrying a child near the apartment just before 10pm.

The earlier Tanner sighting had always been treated as the most significant, but the Oakley team controversially poured cold water on her account.

Instead, they focused on the Smith sighting, travelling to Ireland to interview the family and produce E-Fits of the man they saw. Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.

The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes.

The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008 (Adrian Sheratt) The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay.

The potential abductor seen by the Smiths is now the prime suspect in Scotland Yard’s investigation, after detectives established that the man seen earlier by Tanner was almost certainly a father carrying his child home from a nearby night creche. The Smith E-Fits were the centrepiece of the Crimewatch appeal.

One of the Oakley investigators said last week: “I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme . . . It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things . . . And those E-Fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours,” he said.

The detailed images of the face of the man seen by the Smith family were never released by the McCanns. But an artist’s impression of the man seen earlier by Tanner was widely promoted, even though the face had to be left blank because she had only seen him fleetingly and from a distance.

Hobnob said...

Various others images of lone men spotted hanging around the resort at other times were also released.

Nor were the Smith E-Fits included in Kate McCann’s 2011 book, Madeleine, which contained a whole section on eight “key sightings” and identified those of the Smiths and Tanner as most “crucial”. Descriptions of all seven other sightings were accompanied by an E-Fit or artist’s impression. The Smiths’ were the only exception. So why was such a “crucial” piece of evidence kept under lock and key?

The relationship between the fund and Oakley was already souring by the time the report was submitted — and its findings could only have made matters worse.

As well as questioning parts of the McCanns’ evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine’s sleeping patterns and raised the highly sensitive possibility that she could have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself from one of two unsecured doors.

There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.

Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.


The McCanns were also understandably wary of Oakley after allegations that the chairman, Kevin Halligen, failed to pass on money paid by the fund to Exton’s team. Halligen denies this. He was later convicted of fraud in an unrelated case in the US.

The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators after the contract ended, but that the firm’s work was considered “contaminated” by the financial dispute.

He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors.

“[The report] was hypercritical of the people involved . . . It just wouldn’t be conducive to the investigation to have that report publicly declared because . . . the newspapers would have been all over it. And it would have been completely distracting,” said the source.

A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.

It continued: “Throughout the investigation, the Find Madeleine fund’s sole priority has been, and remains, to find Madeleine and bring her home as swiftly as possible.”

Hobnob said...

my comment on FB

Well, well, well kate and gerry, what a palaver.

First the libel trial which you tried to end by offering to do a deal with Dr.Amaral.
Why would you do that given you claimed he libelled you and hindered the search to find your Daughter Madeleine Beth McCann.

This is unheard of , plaintiffs offering to do a deal with the defendant to end their case, why would you do that i asked myself?

Firstly you waited a year before you issued a libel suit, why wait so long especially given he was not only libelling you but also hindering the search?
Does libel get worse over time or was it perhaps you had your eyes on the possible money you could get if you waited a while to see how the book went?

Ah yes, the book, the one you claimed libelled you and hindered the search and people would stop looking if they thought Madeleine was dead.
Except it didn't stop people searching ,as sightings were still dribbling in, even the ones your fund or pi's paid for.

People were still looking despite the book, a book which was written in Portuguese and not available in the UK despite what your witnesses claimed.

Happily for you and sadly for us and Dr. Amaral, though you won the first round and had his book confiscated and all sorts of restrictions imposed to stop the facts coming out.
Happily for us and Dr. Amaral and sadly for you you lost the subsequent appeals.

The judges said, quite rightly, he had freedom of speech and an entitlement to write his opinion be it on the case or the best way to have a bacon butty.

You were stuck since the book you tried to ban was based and used the facts from the actual police files plus his years of experience as a cop.
This was a man who knew his job, knew all the tricks and mostly knew when someone was pulling a fast one and blocking the case and him.

He knew he could accomplish nothing more whilst he stayed a cop, politics and dark dealings hindered and blocked him, he thus made a hard decision for himself, his family and for Madeleine.

He resigned.

Perhaps at this point you thought you were home free, the meddlesome cop was gone, you had contacts and money and a fearsome law firm, good old Carter-Ruck.
Threats to sue shut most people and media up, suing shut the rest up.
Some came to an out of court settlement which you spun as if you had won in court ( nice touch standing on the steps of the Old Bailey there tapas 7, well 6 in reality)

He was down but not out, he bided his time and wrote a book and when the case was shelved as he and we knew it would be it released it and the documentary.

You had shut down the media you couldn't shut down the net.

Hobnob said...

The book was translated by portuguese friends for us the public to read and at no cost to use except their time, whilst you spent allegedly £100,000 on translations
( BTW i and many others would like to see transparent accounts please which you promised us)

You knew the facts in the files painted you in a bad light, whilst you were arguidos, much as you complained, you knew you were safe due to judicial secrecy.
You couldn't talk to the public but your family and friends could and did including dear clarrie.

With the facts in the files now translated and made public you were stuck you had to counterattack so you came up with the mockumentary and the bewk.
It was a delightful mockumentary despite the fact the actress who played you, kate, was cut as her story was unbelievable, you can thank gerry for that tidbit.
The supposed reconstruction was anything but, and hey, you even managed to briefly mention the Smith sighting even though he was morphed into bundleman.
What we saw was not a reconstruction it was a happy family peep show.
Look how well we are doing without Madeleine.

The public saw this and laughed, the bewk did slightly better but kate, dear kate, you really are leakier than a colander.
Describing your daughter's torn perfect genitals was for what reason?
Shock value? remember the bewk was written for your remaining children to read.
I am sure they will be as shocked as we were when they reach page 129.
Was it a leaked marble?
Something you remember seeing?
It would after all fit in with your vision of a grey mottled body sitting on a cold slab, a true reflection of a several days old corpse decompsing.
What would the twins make of all this, after all you can't stop them from reading books or surfing the net or listening to friends or watching tv, especially once they hit 18 and become adults.
You can only control what they hear for so long, and even now they come home asking awkward questions.

The marbles were leaking out.
We have you wanting to press a button, you talking about a murder in Portugal instead of an abduction.
Gerry talking about no evidence she is dead or that you played a part in her death!
Not disappearance then?

You set strict requirements on your pi's and gagged them knowing they couldn't drop you in it
You demanded people phone your hotline with info and send in photos, claiming someone had the missing piece of the puzzle when you kate had 48 puzzle pieces and refused to do a reconstruction via your faithful chums.
By the way how are they doing?
Do you still trust them to stay quiet, especially now?

You courted and feted the media and then cried foul when the media buit back, even to perjuring yourself in the leveson enquiry.
Perjury carries a life sentence did you know that?

When the case was shelved you could have spoken up and demanded it be kept open yet you didn't?
Why was that?
A shelved case meant no active searching, no active investigation apart from your pi's, and we know how good they were.

You demanded a review not a reopening.
It sounded good to the public and media, the desperate parents trying to find their daughter, forever searching.
Except you never actually searched in the first place unless of course you count the beach walks, the jogging ( 19 mins to the top of the hill, wow you must have worked hard that day) the world tours to countries where she hadn't been seen, meeting the Pope( did you get absolved? you can only be absolved if you confess)

Then something happens, SY do a review.
You felt safe a review would do nothing plus it saved you making a call or posting a letter offering to answer those 48 questions or do a reconstruction with your chums. all talk and no action.

What happened?

Hobnob said...

The yard say they were going to reopen the case, the public thought great.
Ibet you and gerry were not happy.
What had they found that could cause then to start investigating?
It had to be something they had found, it turned out to be bundleman, or rather not bundleman and the Smith sighting.

Perhaps you didn't think your PI's would hand over all their files after all you sat on info for 5 yrs and had gagging clauses, however if the court orders it, it must be handed over.

For years you had talked about a crimewatch type show, televised and following your information, knowing the PJ would say no thus you could blame them.
I wonder what was said when you found out there would be a crimewatch special?

You couldn't refuse point blank as even clarrie would have trouble spinning that and even your most ardent supporters would go huh?
You set out restrictions to make it hard as possible.
No filming in Portugal as it would upset the PJ, except the PJ wanted you there doing one so you had to think of another excuse.
It would be too painful, add a few tears and bingo.

No worries said the police we'll film it in spain and use actors, although why would it be too painful 6 yrs after the fact but not too painful for your mockumentary all those years back.

They said we will do the reconstruction and you can have a pre recorded interview and then we'll do a bit of chit chat.
No worries, you have done all this before it'll be a doddle.

The police though like any good force weren't telling you everything.
We all know how they love to stage pressers with persons of interest to see what they say and how they act (the philpotts, tracie andrews etc)

They caught you by surprise.
Bundleman is gone and along with it gerry's alibi and to top it all those pesky efits you sat on for 5 yrs were up front and centre and everyone and their dog said oh look it's gerry.
This is why you looked so dreadful kate, you were terrified, you knew what us bloggers and commentators were saying.
Could we be right?

We were indeed.

What now kate and gerry?

The cat is out the bag so to speak.
Y
ou know you will be asked those 48 questions and do a proper reconstruction.
The PJ reopened the case due to new and compelling evidence.
You will be made arguidos either because as soon as the case was reopened it was automatically reapplied, or because you request it or because the police impose it so you can refuse to answer and co-operate without going to jail.
In the UK you can say no comment till the cows come home without fear of penalty.

Hobnob said...

All this whilst the libel trial is ongoing.

You know you will lose.
It is a given since it is now clear you actively hindered the search for your own daughter, whilst Goncalo did all he could to find her and get justice for her.

How will you pay your legal fees and compensation since you can't use the fund (all those people who donated will not be happy)
What about all the other fees?
What about your backers who donated believing your story only to find out you lied.
They could sue for return of their money and that's a lot of money.
Plus, you can face charges of obtaining money by deception, fraud wire fraud in America and they don't take that lightly (darn that dollar paypal button) plus, we then have charges in the UK of perverting the course of justice, obstruction of justice, perjury,etc and that's before we even look at charges in relation to Madeleine.
You know the homicide, filing a false police report and concealing a corpse, heck the UK police could charge you since she was a british citizen.
Then you will lose your kids, your medical licences, your house to pay your bills since no one is going to back you financially.

Your family may or may not eventually forgive you, the same with your children.
You will be a social pariah.
No more high flying contacts, no big parties.

You will be hated not only for what you did to Madeleine, even if it was an accident, but what you did to your remaining children, the children of your friends, your family, the public.
Everything you worked so hard for, everything you wanted will become ashes.
It will all be over.

Hobnob said...

Right now the only way you can make amends to Madeleine, Sean and Amelie, yourself, your family and friends is to come clean and speak the truth.

IVF is hard on a woman both physically and emotionally, 3 children in such a short period of time is a lot, we know you found it hard to cope, anyone would.

Emotions run high with all those hormones up to harvesting and conception and then during pregnancy only to suddenly stop,.

Accidents happen, people do things on the spur of them moment when they snap.

The courts and the public understand this.
Many have gone through the same thing, we see it in the news, it happens.

In such cases the the courts and the public are forgiving, even family and friends forgive when they know the truth.
Just like you tell your kids to tell the truth and that you still love them, now is the time to tell the truth.
You will feel so much better for it once it is out, just like you did as a child yourself.
You knew that your family still loved you even when you told a lie or did something naughty.
Punishment then forgiveness and finally moving on with life.

You are scared right now, scared of the unknown, what will happen.

If you tell the truth it will never be as bad as you think.

Let's make this the start of a new day.
Make your children proud of you that you did what you tell them to do and tell the truth,.
If you can't do it alone take a trusted friend or family member.
Once you say those first few words, this is what happened, this is what we did, then you can grieve for your little girl and start the process of healing.

ME said...

Thank you Hobnob!!!! I'm drained!!!!!

Anonymous said...

"You who are on the road
Must have a code that you can live by
And so become yourself
Because the past is just a good bye.

Teach your children well,
Their father's hell did slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picked, the one you'll know by.

Don't you ever ask them why, if they told you, you would cry,
So just look at them and sigh and know they love you.

And you, of tender years,
Can't know the fears that your elders grew by,
And so please help them with your youth,
They seek the truth before they can die.

Counter Melody To Above Verse:
Can you hear and do you care and
Cant you see we must be free to
Teach your children what you believe in.
Make a world that we can live in.

Teach your parents well,
Their children's hell will slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picked, the one you'll know by.

Don't you ever ask them why, if they told you, you would cry,
So just look at them and sigh and know they love you." - Crosby Stills

-post by Dawn Moore

rob said...

My opinion:
Baby Lisa and M McCann, death by drugs(for baby-sitting), and cover-up
Isabel C, Jon Bennet, and Hailey D, some type of sexual abuse,causing death or death to shut them up
Ayla, death by abuse or for financial gain
Kyron- first degree murder

Sus said...

M. McCann - drug overdose and cover up
JonBenet Ramsey - death by abuse, prior sexual abuse, and cover up
Kyron Hormone - premeditated murder
Ayla Reynolds - death by abuse and cover up
Lisa Irwin - drug overdose possibly involving the neighbor she drank with, and cover up
Isabel Celis - sexual abuse leading to death and cover up. I don't believe the mother knew at first that Isabel was dead. She may now, but thinks one of her sons did something...or she may still believe she was traded for something...whatever her husband told her because she is completly co-dependent.